@JoeFedric-TL please see my responses to your post below:
“I’ve replied to Michael’s ticket. It looks like he went from a Radeon HD 6450 to an RX 550. As you can see here, the upgraded card is about 10x (900%) faster than the card he was using:”
Thanks for replying to my ticket after I figured it out on my own.
“I’ve made this argument ad nauseam about our OpenGL applications. If you use a slow card, expect bad performance.”
You make it sound like I should know this. Why should I? If it was so obvious that my Studio non-performance was possibly due to a slow card, why wasn’t that pointed out to me at any time? This statement should be put in your requirements page.
“We cannot build software that makes slow hardware fast. It sounds like the application was timing out, because your graphics card was too slow to return your image to the application, before the operating system stepped in and stopped the application. This is something we cannot really plan for, because the operating system and hardware are what create this issue.”
Thanks for pointing this out after I figured out the solution. Topaz asked for my system information. I sent it twice. I kept asking what I needed for my system hardware/software to reasonably work with Studio. I never got an answer.
“We did find a problem with the All and Trending preset list, which was addressed in 1.0.8 with a hotfix. You claimed in your ticket that 1.0.8 did not help enough to render the Studio application useful to you. This means that your GPU was 100% to blame for the crashes, rather than our application. The update to 1.0.9 provides a permanent fix to the All and Trending preset lists: pagination.”
Again, thanks for pointing out to me the GPU was 100% to blame after I figured it out on my own. By the way, you keep calling my issue a “crashing” issue. It wasn’t, it was a “Not Responding” issue that never went away unless I forced the program to close.
“Unfortunately, we don’t really have a way at the moment to prevent you from loading images that are too large for your graphics card to process fast enough to prevent the operating system from interfering with the application, causing it to crash.”
Evidently it’s my fault that the “too large” images I used with v1.0.5 worked fine with Studio and my old card, but caused the “Not Responding” condition in subsequent versions of Studio.
“As long as you meet the minimum requirements, it will run. There’s a reason we list minimum requirements, recommended requirements, and optimal requirements. Minimum is the absolute minimum to get Studio installed. Recommended is what we recommend you use to enjoy the product. Optimal is where you can start seeing near-instant processing in a number of our products, including Studio.”
I actually like this explanation. You make it sound like I or others should already know this. I didn’t know this. It would be good if it was provided in your requirements pages to set expectations for Topaz users. It doesn’t explain why I was reasonably happy with my old card when using Studio until after V1.0.5.
“Anything that performs poorly between Minimum and Recommended is to be expected.”
Put this in your requirements page too. It seems like this could have been pointed out to me after I sent in my system information the first time, as requested by Topaz. It would have prevented a lot of aggravation and wasted time for me.
“We do respond as soon as possible. I’m just one person. I know you don’t want to hear an excuse or a sob story, but the fact of the matter is, I run support all by myself. We’re getting another agent to help cover the volume we receive next Tuesday, but I’ve been at this solo for 2+ years.”
“We have never ignored a customer, people always get responses. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, its never enough ¯\ _ (ツ)_/¯”
“As soon as possible” must be a relative term. I count 5 emails I sent to you starting July 9th until you finally replied yesterday, July 26, after I already figured out a solution on my own. I think that speaks for itself. Regardless of never ignoring a customer, I certainly felt ignored, but I get the feeling that’s my fault too.
It’s disappointing to me to hear that you are the only person to handle support. I truly want Topaz Labs to be successful. I want you personally to be successful. I’ve purchased and been using all of Topaz Lab’s products since 2009. I think Topaz makes great image processing software and I want Topaz to be very successful doing that well into the future. I’ve never had technical issues with Topaz products until now, so have never had a need to use Topaz support before. Perhaps one-person support worked before Studio, but to me doesn’t seem to be working now. You should be given the resources needed to be successful at your “Customer Happiness” job and to keep Topaz successful. To me that means being more responsive and helpful than what I experienced. Hopefully, adding a person to help you out will make the difference. Hopefully, Topaz Labs’ leadership will make the necessary adjustments to the Studio business model to keep its customers happy, considering what appears to me to be a rocky start.